39 “terrorist attacks” in a day averted and the release of SARS-covid-2
I found the story told by Ole Dammegard on the connection between a terrorist false flag plan to launch 39 attacks within 36 hours and the release of the coronavirus bioweapon compelling, so I decided to go through and find as much information as I could about the background.
Given the importance of the subject matter it was not easy.
Listen to his story HERE. I will post a video that parallels this further down the page.
I was unable to locate the video of the man he talks about, Ola Stettenmark, who talked openly about sending out an emergency 1 minute before a terrorist attack (that was not known about at the time. However I have found other material that relates to this.
Firstly here is the Twitter item in Swedish of Mr. Stettenmark.
Having worked in this field for perhaps 35 years Mr. Dammegard is perhaps better equipped at seeing through the code of this than most.
"Summarizes a very good steering group fashion in Barcelona. A total of 39 recommendations have been established in the five areas that the cities have worked with. We also had the opportunity to lecture on the task force and visit the memorial site for the attack at La Ramblia, interesting and chancellor"
Having worked in this field for perhaps 35 years Mr. Dammegard is perhaps better equipped at seeing through the code of this than most.
He put out an alert as widely as he could as here.
Or watch this:
Ole thought he might have ruined Mr. Stettenmark's carrier but I found that he is still on bothFacebook and Twitter.
The date came and went and he thought he must have been wrong but he received an email from a friend working in Brussels.
It seemed that Ole Dammegard's alert (heard by several tens of thousands of people) may have created a panic.
First of all there was this:
The Defence Ministers of the North Atlantic Council met on 24-25 October 2019 at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. The meeting gave rise to fierce clashes between Germany, the Benelux countries and France on the one hand, and the United States and Turkey on the other.
The former members of the defunct Warsaw Pact, eager to keep up their guard against Russia, smoothed the waters.
Unlike the 1966 crisis, when France had refused to place its military forces under the orders of a US General and withdrew from the NATO Integrated Command, the current conflict is not about the independence of individual members from the USA, but concerns the survival of the Alliance itself.
Germany, Benelux and France have called for a military intervention in north eastern Syria, both against the armed forces of Syria and Turkey (a NATO member), and in support of YPG Kurdish militias. For their part, the United States and Turkey argued that US forces did not have a mandate to justify their presence in Syria, and that Turkey was legally acting on the basis of its right to counter attacks from terrorists inside Syria.
This situation raises the broader question of what will become of the Alliance now that the United States has decided to step down from its imperial throne, having already taken steps in that direction.
Nature abhorring a vacuum, Germany, Benelux and France are obvious candidates, as a group, to take over the task, though they lack the necessary means. This being said, Germany prefers to remain within the framework of the Alliance, [1] while France envisions this change to take place within the structure of the European Union (that is, without both the United States and the United Kingdom).
As a historical reminder, at the time of the collapse of the USSR, the Warsaw Pact did not survive Moscow’s recognition of the independence of its member states. The "Brezhnev Doctrine" of 1968 justified a military intervention in member countries of the Pact if the socialist character of the Eastern Bloc was at stake. Consequently, Moscow was able to crush the "Prague Spring." By contrast, in 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev declared that Moscow was no longer in a position to dictate its law to its allies; a principle he facetiously called the "Sinatra Doctrine" (referring to Frank Sinatra’s song My Way). There was no repression in Hungary and, in the German Democratic Republic, the Berlin Wall came down all of a sudden.
The Atlantic Alliance also has stay-behind secret services, [2] in charge of keeping Member States in line, by resorting, if necessary, to assassination or regime-change methods. Although these services have been dissolved on several occasions, they are still active. However, it had never been anticipated that the problem would be coming from the United States.
This was the press conference cited by Ole Dammegard of the NATO heads General Jens Stoltenberg.
Then there was news that all the Israeli embassies and consulates around the world had closed down. This was ascribed to a "general strike"
I could not find anything in the internet archives about Pence's plane turning around from the Middle East to go home although I do recall the story quite clearly.
Then Donald Trump announced that ISIS leader, al-Baghdadi had been killed (for the fourth time?
So, it seemed that something terrible may have been averted, at least in Mr. Dammegard's analysis.
Now, we turn to the novel coronavirus outbreak which was then declared a pandemic with everything that has followed.
Just prior to all the NATO meeting described above there was Event 201, which was an exercise around a theoretical virus outbreak in a South American country. Although it was about a South American country there were no representatives from the continent but there was a Chinese contingent as well as all the usual suspects.
At the same time, in Wuhan, China there were the World Military Games held from October 18–27
There were 10,000 athletes from over 100 countries competing in 27 sports.
The theory of Ole Dammegard is that there was supposed to be 39 almost simultaneous attacks on the European continent to be followed by soldiers from the Military World Games returning to their countries carrying a deadly virus.
Instead, only 50% of the original plan was able to carried out and the bioweapon, albeit in a weak form, was released in western countries.
Here is a bit of background, courtesy of Spiro Skouras
Finally, there is also this very good interview that covers the same material.
Here is my video (partially) on this them from yesterday
Victorians could be arrested and detained by public servants, union officials or anyone else the government authorises under an extraordinary new law that Premier Daniel Andrews wants to pass.
The new law would allow the government to let protective services officers and WorkSafe inspectors enforce public health directions such as Melbourne's 9pm curfew and strict gathering limits.
The unprecedented plan would also allow officials to arrest people they suspect may spread coronavirus even if they have done nothing wrong.
Those who could be arrested include positive patients or close contacts who officials suspect may refuse to self-isolate, such as protesters or people with mental health difficulties.
An esteemed group of 14 retired judges and barristers on Tuesday wrote a letter slamming the plan as 'unprecedented, excessive and open to abuse' and begged the Victorian parliament to vote it down.
Critics say Mr Andrews wants to create his own version of the Stasi, the East German secret police force which spied on citizens through a network of informants and arrested more than 250,000 people between 1950 and 1990.
The measures are outlined in the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2020, which has passed the lower house and will be debated in the upper house.
Liberty Victoria president Julian Burnside has raised concerns that government workers authorised to make arrests may not be able to accurately determine whether someone poses a risk of spreading Covid-19.
'The bill introduces a preventative detention regime which appears to have little protections or oversight, and provides far too much discretion to people who may lack the necessary expertise to determine risk, including police officers,' he said.
Victoria's state of emergency and disaster powers, extended until October 11, give police the power to detain someone 'for the period reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce a serious risk to public health'.
Police officers can also search people's homes without a warrant and restrict movement between locations such as between regional Victoria and Melbourne.
In their letter the group of retired judges and prominent QCs said they were 'deeply concerned' about how the bill would expand the power of the state.
They said the bill would allow anyone to be authorised to exercise emergency powers.
'There would be no requirement that persons authorised be police officers, or even public servants,' the letter read.
Allowing citizens to make arrests 'on the basis of a belief that the detained person is unlikely to comply with emergency directions' is 'unprecedented, excessive and open to abuse,' the lawyers said.
Gideon Rozner, Director of Policy at free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs told Daily Mail Australia the legislation was 'extremely dangerous' and would create the 'Daniel Andrews Stasi'.
'It will allow Dan Andrews to effectively appoint anyone he wants as an authorised officer, with extraordinarily broad discretion to enforce Victoria's emergency powers,' he said.
'Union leaders could be appointed to unleash retribution on small business owners who speak out against lockdowns.
'Labor Party officials could be appointed to intimidate political opponents. 'I Stand With Dan' types could be appointed to spy on their friends and neighbours.
'Not since East Germany have we seen such a monstrous web of government surveillance. The Victorian Parliament must vote down this bill and say no to the Dan Andrews Stasi.'
Mr Andrews said he did not agree the proposed legislation was excessive or open to abuse.
'In terms of recruitment, process, oversight - all that can be managed,' Mr Andrews said on Tuesday in response to the lawyers' letter.
'In terms of the first point, though, the notion it is unprecedented, yes, it is. Because we're in a one-in-100-year event. This is not in any way business as usual.'
Mr Andrews justified the new law by saying it would help keep case numbers low, even though no other state in Australia has required such a drastic measure.
'We jealously guard the low (case) numbers that we are in the process of delivering, then you need to have a bigger enforcement team,' he said.
'They will play many different roles, but I think we have struck the right balance there.'
Victoria's Attorney-General Jill Hennessy said the laws would 'allow us to continue responding to the challenges the pandemic presents, so we can keep protecting Victorians and delivering the services they rely on.'
The labor government has a majority in the lower house but needs the support of the cross bench to get the bill through the upper house.
On Tuesday Victoria reported three coronavirus deaths, while new cases jumped on Tuesday to 28.
The latest fatalities take the state toll to 766 and the national figure to 854. The news cases are a significant spike on Monday's 11, the lowest Victorian figure since June 16.
But the crucial 14-day rolling average of new cases for Melbourne continues to fall to 32.8, while it is holding at 1.6 for regional areas.
Cases with an unknown source from September 6-19 are 45 for Melbourne and none for regional Victoria.
There was some good news for Premier Daniel Andrews on Tuesday, with a Newspoll showing a majority of Victorian voters back his handling of the state's second wave.
Some 62 per cent said they were satisfied with his performance even though the virus escaped from hotel quarantine in late May and caused a deadly second wave.
The Newspoll also found that 61 per cent of Victorians thought the state's lockdown restrictions were 'about right'.
A quarter of people said they were too strict and 10 per cent said they were too lenient.
Asked how Mr Andrews was handling his job, 62 per cent of voters were satisfied and 35 per cent were dissatisfied for a net satisfaction score of 27 per cent.
The September net score was up from 20 per cent in July when the state's second wave of infections began to emerge. In April, it was 58 per cent.
Mr Andrews has been under constant criticism since he plunged Victoria back into lockdown on 8 July. The state's second wave has caused more than 700 deaths, mostly in aged care homes.
It began when hotel security guards and staff failed to adhere to social distancing requirements, caught the virus and spread it around Melbourne.
'Excessive and open to abuse': The lawyers' letter in full
'We are deeply concerned by the passage of the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2020 (Bill) through the Legislative Assembly.
Emergency powers already allow authorised officers under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) to detain people and to restrict movement.
The Bill would expand the emergency powers to allow an authorised officer to detain:
• any person that the authorised officer reasonably believes is likely to fail to comply with an emergency direction and is a close contact of a person diagnosed with COVID-19 (or a person diagnosed with COVID-19) not given clearance from self-isolation;
• for so long as the authorised officer reasonably believes the person in detention is likely to fail to comply with an emergency direction.
The Bill would also allow any person the Secretary considered appropriate to be authorised to exercise emergency powers. There would be no requirement that persons authorised be police officers, or even public servants.
Authorising citizens to detain their fellow citizens on the basis of a belief that the detained person is unlikely to comply with emergency directions by the 'authorised' citizens is unprecedented, excessive and open to abuse.
We call on the Legislative Council to amend the Bill, or to vote against it.
The Prime Minister is imposing tough new restrictions, including a 10pm curfew on pubs, bars and restaurants from Thursday, after his top advisers warned of a winter death crisis without action. In a televised address to the nation at 8pm, he will appeal to the public to redouble their efforts to drive down the disease by following the rules. A Downing Street source said: "People made a huge effort to beat the virus but now we can see it starting to get traction again.
"We must all redouble our efforts to follow the rules. Only a united front can drive down the virus again, keep people safe and our society moving forward."
British volunteers are to be deliberately infected with COVID-19 to test whether a vaccine offers any protection.
In the first trial of its kind, participants will be injected with an experimental vaccine and around a month later exposed to Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes the disease.
According to FT, the studies - which are known as human challenge trials - will begin in January and are government funded.
Sweden's lockdown-free coronavirus response is at risk as officials mull 'chain-breaking' localised restrictions amid a spike of cases in Stockholm.
State epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, the herd-immunity architect, expanded on the proposals for the capital after first signalling the shift on Tuesday.
'We are thinking of fairly short restrictions, to break the spread of infection requires perhaps two to three weeks at most,' Tegnell told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper on Wednesday. 'We are still developing the concept, so to say, but something like that.'
Tegnell added: 'The restrictions could be extremely local. It could be about a single workplace or city district: wherever you see a spread and think that there are restrictions that might stop it.'
I am putting this together on the day when a “three day” Level 3 lockdown has been announced in New Zealand and the spectre of mandatory vaccination faces us, or at least a version where the unvaccinated or untested cannot leave their own homes.
This piece from Andrew Wakefield, the whistleblower who revealed the very real connection between MMR and autism is one of the best expositions of what vaccination of the type we are looking at in the near future means.
As a retired practitioner of Chinese Medicine I have had an understanding of the issues since the mid-1990's but this has been deepened by subsequent research on the subject.
One thing I know is that my parents' generation was probably genetically the strongest generation in history (my father was born in 1912). They came at a time when huge advances were made in public health and hygiene and many of the issues of poverty that gave rise to disease were resolved; of course, now poverty is making a major come-back and is set to get worse.
"We cannot credit the mess immunisations in the US for the decline of some childhood diseases but they declined simultaneously in Europe where the mass immunisations did not take place"
The reality is that increased host resistance was due to better nutrition and sanitation and housing is the cause of the decline of infectious diseases
For example:
"The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria whooping cough and measles among children of up to 15 shows that nearly 90% of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunisation."
There are two competing paradigms that I can see.
One, recognises that for the entire population to be largely healthy and resistant to deadly strains of virus some people will have to succumb to the illness (something that has happened throughout history and will continue to do so because we can't beat Mother Nature with our medications and viruses.
The other seems to regard every death as a tragedy but it is perfectly alright to destroy the immunity and the health of the general population to save the life of just one person who was probably going to die soon anyhow.
Not only that, but we have to shut down the economy, lock down the entire population, destroy human rights to reach this lofty goal.
In my mind that is complete insanity and speaks to an inability to confront reality.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to ban illness and death from illness forever? But Nature doesn't work that way!
Andrew Wakefield can say it better than I can:
The question of Sweden vs New Zealand
This video came my way yesterday. Although there are things I would take exception to (especially the climate change denial, and as an American there are things about New Zealand he misses), he is correct in many of the things he points out.
It comes down to New Zealand deciding to close everything down and to completely destroy the tourist industry that we are, as a nation, so dependent on to try and halt a condition that has so far killed about 5 people (how many people are permanently damaged I have no idea because they don't tell us).
Reaching For The Precious
The NZ prime minister has not only been claiming 'success' for New Zealand in the 'fight against covid-19 but positively CROWING about it and this has been echoed in the international corporate-controlled media.
Now we are entering another round of Level 3 lockdown in Auckland that is "for 3 days" but likely to spread to other parts of New Zealand and to last for a long, long time; this is the "Second Wave" everyone has been talking about.
If there is any doubt this appeared anonymously on Facebook (and I have little reason to doubt it:
This was leaked to someone else; Kia ora, I can't say who sorry as he will
get into trouble and already got into trouble for disagreeing to go to the
South Island (but flew out today) he rang me last Thursday to say the NZDF
(himself) and the Govt, met to put into place a full lockdown by Oct. He said
the NZDF will be taking over (as in martial law) on October 1st all of the
hospitals, quarantine bases and airports.
They will.assign their troops to regions to enforce mandatory testing with
household testers. He was told he had to train using the same plan of attack
he used in Timor.
He refused to hurt NZ'ers etc etc.but was told they had to use brute force
and any force necessary. The training for the next two weeks is dealing with
protests riots and a significant job loss in NZ. I'm letting you know only to
prepare (as you already are) and to warn your whanau to stock up ASAP
Feel free to let any and everyone know. Please don't say I said and re word
for yourself. I am letting as many know as possible. The lieutanant that
informed me actually cried when we were zooming as he didn't want to do
what was being asked of him. He trains troops to take over seas. I told him
that if everyone said no to Hitler there would be millions of lives saved. He
has a choice to say no.
But please let everyone know. Who knows if it will come to fruition but after
tonight announcement it's happening already just as it did in the ghettos \
during WW2.
Sweden
New Zealand's response has to be contrasted with that of Sweden.
This was what the world was saying back on 26 May about Sweden. It was, in corporate media, the very example of WHAT NOT TO DO.
These were the predictions made about Sweden.
However, what is the reality? I think that what this tweet says probably largely correct and the graph speaks for itself.
Sweden's mortality levels, after a large temporary spike are now down to practically zero. I know that Sweden "allowed" a lot of people in rest homes to die (as they did in other countries with draconian lockdown - for instance, New York (and reportedly, Melbourne) they put cover patients in the rest homes - something that amounts to euthanasia.
To know what happens next and whether Swedes really have developed a natural herd immunity to covid-19 as described by Andrew Wakefield we will have to watch this space.
My suspicion is that, having let the virus rip through the country and kill over 5,000 people Swedes might be in a better situation than countries like New Zealand that have opted for the option of locking things down at the first sign of trouble.
P.S. For balance I checked the stats for neighbouring Denmark that did lock down and their deaths are at a similar level.
However, like other countries the Danes seem to be disinterested in the levels of mortality and concentrate on the number of cases.
I recall a deceptive graph put out a few weeks ago that posted the absolute figures for cover-19 in New Zealand a juxtaposed those with figure from China and the USA to show how well New Zealand was doing. Now a blogger has done a graph using comparative figures that demonstrate that Sweden and Britain are not doing so differently - despite one country being under punitive lockdown and the other not.
Posts
